Search
`
October 7, 2024

Posted on

Overheard at NECA Power Markets: ‘Unqualified Reliability’ is Out

In the stakeholder conversations on power market development, the phrases most often used these days are transformation, transition to clean energy and momentous change, said Sheila Keane, director of analysis at New England States Committee on Electricity.

And with big changes comes a lot of uncertainty, Keane said at the Northeast Energy and Commerce Association’s Power Markets Conference on Tuesday. Keane moderated a panel on power market developments in New England with perspectives from experts representing generators, transmission owners, clean energy advocates and consumers.

Vermont Department of Public Service Commissioner June Tierney set the mood for the panel in a keynote speech that highlighted the challenges in current market conditions and set the priorities she sees for market development.

“Reaching our carbon-free future requires that we make new choices in designing the markets that will take us to our decarbonized future — new choices that are more respectful of the laws enacted by our New England states,” she said.

Doing so, she added, is complicated and messy, and everyone will not always agree or be happy.

The ISO’s core job can no longer be “unqualified reliability,” Tierney said. Instead, it must “achieve reliability, fueled by renewability with a keen eye on affordability,” she said. “That is what the sovereign New England states want because that is what their people need.”

Affordability, she said, is a necessary part of the lexicon for power market development. On the path to what some people call “beneficial electrification,” prices must encourage beneficial customer behaviors, such as buying an electric vehicle or heat pump, she said.

Expert Views

ISO-NE acknowledges that “things need to change,” as evidenced by its proposal to eliminate the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR), Andrew Gillespie, director of market development at ISO-NE, said during the panel discussion.

“Our proposal is not only to remove the MOPR, but to adjust the demand curve to account for the impact on the cost of capital to supply, including the existing generators,” Gillespie said. “We feel that that is the middle of the road.”

The ISO, he said, is trying to find common ground, and it recognizes the “changing nature” of the fleet and that environmental issues are the driver of the change.

As New England states push for electrification in heating and transportation, the grid needs to procure more significant amounts of clean energy to meet climate goals, said Priya Gandbhir, staff attorney at Conservation Law Foundation.

“I think that the ISO is aware of its role in achieving these goals, and it certainly seems on their list of to-dos, but it’s unclear whether the level to which the ISO prioritizes these issues is strong enough,” she said.

CLF and its partners, she said, are prepared to push the ISO and states to make the necessary changes that will ensure sectoral transitions are supported by a clean grid.

Looking to the future of New England’s electricity system, the question will not be whether the generation mix will be clean, said Rebecca Tepper, chief of the Energy and Environment Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. The real question is how to build that mix in the most cost-effective and reliable way, she said.

“We’re hoping that we’ll be able to use the wholesale markets in a way that will result in a better outcome,” she said. “But we’re still talking about the same two issues that we’ve been talking about for years, which is incorporating those clean energies into the market and resource adequacy.”

A positive outcome will be tied to valuing resources for the purpose of reliability.

“That needs to be done both for clean resources and for thermal resources,” she said.

As it stands, states have a lot of unanswered questions about power market development and the mechanisms for clean energy procurement that may come from it, said James Daly, vice president of energy supply at Eversource Energy (NYSE: ES).

Largely New England states are relying on utility power purchase agreements and clean energy standards to reach their climate goals, Daly said, adding that the “jury is still out” as to whether they will cede that control to the ISO.

For Daly, the priorities for market development are environment, reliability and affordability.

“We need to pay attention to whether we have the generation today secured and operational and with the fuel it needs to get us to that future state and not have market dislocations along the way,” he said.

Studies have shown that New England states will need natural gas generation for grid reliability well beyond 2030. And some stakeholders believe carbon pricing is the best option to support the energy transition, said Brett Kruse, vice president of government and regulatory affairs at Calpine.

Carbon pricing, he said, is “politically bad” because states do not support it.

He sees some potential for the market to evolve by 2025 whereby states obtain their capacity through bilateral contracts and the ISO runs a pure reliability market.

But he’s not too optimistic about that possibility.

“I’m just not sure you can change the market enough soon enough, which is important to be able to accomplish that in the market-related way,” he said.

Posted on

Lamont’s TCI-P Reversal Surprises Environmental Advocates, Lawmakers

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont on Tuesday said he would not pursue the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P) next year, arguing that rising gas prices make the enabling legislation “a pretty tough rock to push” through the General Assembly.

The pronouncement surprised environmental advocates and lawmakers alike despite the roller-coaster ride TCI-P has been on since December 2020 when Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and D.C. signed a memorandum of understanding to launch the regional compact. This spring, a bill to enable TCI-P in Connecticut made it out of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee but not to a full vote. Calls to include TCI-P in a special session never came to fruition.

Lamont’s comments were first reported by the Hartford Courant.

TCI-P would institute a declining cap on allowable carbon emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel sold, and require suppliers to purchase carbon allowances at auction. Allowances are projected to generate revenues of up to $89 million in 2023 and as much as $117 million in 2032. The program would direct at least 50% of this money to communities overburdened by air pollution or underserved by the transportation system. It also would establish an equity and environmental justice advisory board to counsel the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and Department of Transportation on equitable outcomes.

Republican lawmakers and gasoline trade associations labeled TCI-P as a “gas tax” in the form of potential pass-down costs from fuel suppliers to consumers. DEEP analysis shows participation could boost gas prices by 5 cents/gallon beginning in 2023, assuming fuel suppliers choose to pass down 100% of allowance costs to consumers. Multiple consumer protection safeguards, including a cost-containment reserve, would kick in at 9 cents/gallon. Opponents said the 5- to 9-cent increase applies to the first year of TCI-P alone, with prices potentially rising by as much as 26 cents.

Amy McLean, Connecticut director and senior policy advocate for Acadia Center, told NetZero Insider she has worked with a “diverse coalition” to push TCI-P and thought there was momentum heading into next year’s General Assembly session.

“The argument that this is not being supported by the people who in many ways are the most impacted by the health effects of transportation emissions is false,” McLean said. “That’s part of the surprise that we have because that was the main plank of this administration’s desire to support the Transportation Climate Initiative.”

State Rep. Joseph Gresko (D), co-chair of the Environment Committee, told NetZero Insider he understands Lamont “reading the political tea leaves” on spiking gas prices heading into an election year in 2022 and not allowing Republicans to weaponize passage of TCI-P. However, Gresko said that should not blur the fact that emissions are an issue in Connecticut.

“DEEP will be the first one to tell you that we have a problem with continued traffic on the road … and that’s not getting any better,” Gresko said.

The department released a report in September that stated Connecticut is off track from its statutory 2030 and 2050 economy-wide emission-reduction targets. The state emitted 42.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2018, the most recent year that data are available. That is 2.9% higher than the state’s 2020 emissions goal and a 2.7% increase from the 2017 inventory. In addition, at 15.8 million metric tons, transportation emissions exceeded the combined emissions of the electricity and residential sectors and have been rising since 1990 despite improvements in fuel economy.

Gresko said he sympathizes with environmental advocates who pushed TCI-P and continue doing it. He said he would be among the Democrats working with them and talking to DEEP about incentivizing electric vehicles and EV charging stations, as gas prices could continue to rise along with emissions.

“I’m more of the ilk of taking advantage of these high gas prices by pushing EVs and building out the infrastructure ourselves via subsidies and incentives,” Gresko said. “Then people would be hopefully making those larger decisions themselves saying, ‘Hey, I’m interested in an electric vehicle because I don’t want to pay XY and Z for gas.”

McLean said TCI-P is one part of the equation for reducing transportation emissions. She noted that the adoption of California emissions standards on medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and electrification of public transportation are two additional solutions, which could work in conjunction with TCI-P.

She also challenged Republican lawmakers to move beyond the “gas tax” argument and offer a solution.

“As far as the tax issue, it’s so easy; it’s low-hanging fruit,” McLean said. “That’s what you go to when you want to scare people. This is the Republican playbook. It’s not rocket science. I would challenge them to come up with a solution other than what has been put on the table. We have, and they have nothing.”

Posted on

NERC Standards Committee Agrees to New Cold Weather Project

NERC’s Standards Committee will move ahead with a new standards development project motivated by February’s winter storms, following a short delay that provoked a rebuke from the organization’s Board of Trustees.

The committee voted at its meeting on Wednesday to accept a standards authorization request (SAR) aimed at ensuring “improved operations, preparedness and coordination during extreme weather” by adopting the recommendations from the joint FERC-NERC inquiry into the storms, released on Tuesday. (See related story, FERC, NERC Release Final Texas Storm Report.) Along with approving the SAR, the committee also approved posting the SAR for a 30-day formal comment period and soliciting SAR drafting team members from industry.

The recommendations in Tuesday’s report include requiring generator owners and/or operators to identify and protect cold weather-critical components, build or retrofit generating units to operate to specific ambient temperatures and weather, and perform annual training on winterization plans.

NERC introduced the same SAR at the committee’s last meeting in October, but the committee declined to approve it. At that point the joint inquiry’s final report had not been released yet, and committee members were reluctant to move forward with a project based only on the preliminary report issued in September. (See NERC Standards Committee Delays Action on Cold Weather SAR.)

Attendees at NERC’s November board meeting expressed frustration with the committee’s inaction: CEO Jim Robb described FERC Chair Richard Glick reacting with “befuddlement and disbelief” and warned that “we can’t use the process … to delay dealing with issues.” (See “Frustration at Cold Weather Delay,” NERC Board of Trustees/MRC Briefs: Nov. 4, 2021.) Board Chair Ken DeFontes said that while the desire for a “deliberate and measured” approach to standards development is understandable, February’s experience showed the need for “dramatic adjustments in how the industry approaches winter preparation.”

Although the committee approved the SAR without objection, Marty Hostler, reliability compliance manager for the Northern California Power Agency, noted that the recommendations in the text of the SAR were different than those given in the joint inquiry report released on Tuesday because it was the same text submitted at the October meeting. He warned that leaving outdated language in the SAR could lead to unnecessary confusion.

“This is based on a PowerPoint presentation that was provided [in October], but the actual final report is different and has different wording and ordering,” Hostler said. “So, instead of getting a bunch of questions after the posting, are they going to type in [the] actual recommendations?”

Howard Gugel, NERC’s vice president of engineering and standards, pointed out that the committee’s resolution required that the drafting team ensure the final SAR “reflect the final recommendation wording and numbering of the final joint inquiry report.” He acknowledged that the Standards Committee’s Executive Committee could update the SAR with the wording from the final report, but because this would take more time — albeit no more than “a day or two” — he didn’t consider it worthwhile.

Chair Amy Casuscelli, of Xcel Energy, also spoke out against changing the SAR. She said that the SAR drafting team would understand that the committee expected it to reconcile the draft SAR to the final recommendations and that she “wouldn’t like to see any additional delay” on the project.

“I know that lots of us are ready and willing and chomping at the bit to get started on this,” Casuscelli said.

Other Standards Actions

Also approved at Wednesday’s meeting was a project to modify the CIP-002-5.1a (Cybersecurity — BES cyber system categorization) reliability standard; the committee voted to approve the project’s SAR, post it for comment and authorize solicitation of SAR drafting team members. The project is intended to revise the standard to include some types of cyber assets associated with high- and medium-impact bulk electric system cyber systems.

A separate item approved by the committee authorizes the Project 2021-03 (CIP-002 Transmission owner control centers) standard drafting team to conduct a field test to help guide further development projects relating to the CIP-002 standard. The field test “will obtain data from transmission owners and transmission operators” via a series of questionnaires to be sent between March and September 2022.

The last action approved by the committee regarding standards was the posting for a 45-day comment period of the proposed FAC-001-4 (Facility interconnection requirements) and FAC-002-4 (Facility interconnection studies). Both standards are part of Project 2020-05 (Modifications to FAC-001 and FAC-002), initiated last year at the request of NERC’s Inverter-based Resource Performance Task Force.

The proposed changes would remove the term “materially modified,” referring to modified facilities being reconnected to the BES. This wording has been criticized as ambiguous, so the changes would include replacing it with “qualified change.” A new requirement has also been added to clarify that a qualified change is to be determined by the region’s planning coordinator.

Posted on

Rulemaking Underway for Washington Climate Laws

Washington officials have begun the nuts-and-bolts rulemaking on three major climate change bills the state’s legislature passed in April.

The three new laws include the nation’s second cap-and-trade bill, a low-carbon fuel standard bill and a bill to cut refrigerant greenhouse gases.

State agency officials briefed the Senate’s Environment, Energy and Technology Committee Tuesday on the rulemaking schedules for those new laws.

The new cap-and-invest law (SB 5126) goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2023. Washington has joined California as the nation’s only states with comprehensive cap-and-trade programs. (See Wash. Becomes 2nd State to Adopt Cap-and-trade.) California participates in the Western Climate Initiative cap-and-trade pact with Quebec.

SB 5126 calls for state officials to engage in brainstorming efforts to create a system to set an annual cap on total industrial carbon emissions, a cap that slowly decreases through the years. Large emitters would submit quarterly bids to the state in an auction for greenhouse gas emissions allowances. Companies would be allowed to buy, sell and trade those allowances.

On Tuesday, officials said the greenhouse gas standards have been recently proposed internally at the state’s Department of Ecology, which will manage the program.  The agency is expected to review and adopt those standards by February 2022.

Ecology officials are expected to propose a basic framework for the cap-and-invest program next spring, with final regulations to be reviewed and adopted by October 2022.

Specific regulations to safeguard industries with significant foreign competition are expected to be proposed internally in December, with that proposal to be reviewed and adopted by July 2022.

LCFS, Refrigerants Rules

The legislature last spring also passed a low-carbon fuel standard bill, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2023. (See LCFS Bill Passes Washington Legislature.)

The bill requires that carbon emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel sold in Washington be cut by 10% below 2017 levels by 2028 and by 20% by 2035. It excludes emissions from fuel that is exported out of state or used by water vessels and railroad locomotives.

Under the program, biofuels would likely be blended with petroleum-based fuels. State officials say vehicle emissions account for 45% of Washington’s carbon pollution.

On Tuesday, state officials told the committee that informal public comments are being accepted, with listening sessions set for Jan. 27 and Feb 23, 2022. The Ecology Department will line up an internal proposal on protective regulations by summer 2022 with regulations formally adopted by winter 2022.

Also on Tuesday, the Senate committee learned that the Ecology Department will accept public input through February 2023 on rules covering hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions from air conditioners and large refrigeration units.

HB 1050 calls for reducing the climate impact of refrigerants used in air conditioners by roughly 70% and in commercial refrigeration systems by about 90%. HFCs account for roughly 4% — or 4 million tons — of Washington’s GHG emissions. The bill is modeled on regulations recently approved by the California Air Resources Board.

The bill enables the state government to set the maximum global warming potential (GWP) measurements for the gases within all sizes of refrigeration units. It would also require grocery stores, ice rinks and other owners of large refrigeration units to periodically check for HFC leaks. Maximum GWP is a measure of an HFC’s ability to retain heat in the atmosphere compared to a similar volume of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period.

The bill establishes an upper GWP limit of 750 for new air conditioning and refrigeration equipment. That standard goes into effect for room air conditioners and dehumidifiers in 2023, and for air conditioning systems with variable refrigerant flows or volumes on Jan. 1, 2026. For other types of refrigeration equipment, the new standards go into effect Jan. 1, 2025.

Environmental Justice Update

As part of the cap-and-invest bill, Washington is also appointing an environmental justice panel to ensure that low-income neighborhoods and communities of color will not be disproportionally burdened with excess pollution. The bill anticipates the auctions would raise several hundred million dollars that the state can allocate to those areas.

Sierra Rotakhina, the new manager of the Environmental Justice Council, outlined what is happening with the proposed 16-person body. Members will represent communities, tribes, environmental justice or academic constituencies, business and labor.

The governor’s office on boards and commissions is vetting applicants to the council, with Rotakhina expecting the body to be running by January.

Several state agencies are expected to develop plans to obtain public feedback on environmental justice issues to present to the council in 2022.  In 2023, the council will work on how state agencies should deal with environmental justice matters and map out funding needs.

Posted on

Pacific NW Leaders Sign High-speed Rail MOU

The leaders of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia signed a memorandum of understanding Tuesday to push for development of an ultra-high-speed train line from Portland to Vancouver, B.C.

The rail line under consideration would support a train going 250 mph for 310-320 miles between Vancouver and Portland, depending on location of the end stations. Seattle would be the primary midway stop. Train systems capable of going 250 mph exist in China, Japan, Spain and France.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and British Columbia Premier John Horgan signed the MOU at the annual Cascadia Innovation Corridor Conference, a gathering to discuss the common economic issues among the two U.S. states and one Canadian province.

“We will coordinate with our partners on pursuing federal funding for a high-speed rail and engage communities throughout our region,” Inslee said in a press release. The press release noted Congress is working on a high-speed rail funding program.

This concept of a high-speed Seattle-to-Vancouver rail has been on the drawing board for at least 20 years but has remained dormant. Inslee has pushed the concept as a way to cut back on pollution from vehicles traveling Interstate 5 from Vancouver to Portland. I-5 is routinely plagued with traffic jams from 20 miles north to 35 miles south of Seattle

“A two-track high-speed guideway can reliably support 6-8 trains per hour in each direction,” according to a report presented to the 2016 Cascadia Innovation Corridor Conference by engineering services firm WSP. “This would mean a train connecting Seattle and Vancouver every 10-15 minutes, with some operating as non-stop express and others stopping at Everett and Bellingham.”

In 2016, WSP estimated that an ultra-high-speed rail line from Seattle to Vancouver would cost $125 million to $1 billion per mile depending on the terrain and other factors. So far, none of the three governments have provided a cost estimate for a 310-mile project.

On Tuesday, Inslee pointed to a 2018 Washington Department of Transportation study of the concept that concluded the rail line could create $355  billion in economic growth while cutting back on greenhouse gases and allowing people to live in affordable housing away from larger, more expensive cities.

That same study also said the land for such a line needs to be analyzed, the technology needs to be studied, and finances and funding need to be worked out. Also, a governing body for such a venture must be created.

Posted on

Fusion Company Gets $500M Investment

Private investors have poured an additional $500 million into a Seattle-area company that believes the fusion reactor it’s developing can achieve net electricity generation by 2024.

Currently, fusion reactors use more energy than they produce. “Net electricity generation” is the Holy Grail of fusion — a reactor producing more electricity than it takes in.

Redmond, Wash.-based Helion Energy is one of at least 10 ventures worldwide that are trying to develop a commercially viable fusion reactor to produce electricity. In July, Helion Energy broke ground in nearby Everett on a 154,000 square-foot research and manufacturing facility to be completed in early 2022. (See Wash. Company Scales up Fusion Energy Efforts.)

A year ago, Helion’s prototype reactor produced a temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius for a fraction of a second, a threshold scientists believe is needed for practical fusion power. While government and academic fusion ventures have hit that benchmark, Helion is the first private operation to do so.

Many fusion reactor projects call for a steady maintenance of the 100-million-degree Celsius threshold. Helion’s approach works somewhat like pistons in an engine — producing 100-million-degree temperatures in pulses. Helion’s sixth-generation reactor can produce a nanosecond pulse once every 10 minutes. The company is aiming to produce a nanosecond pulse every second.

Helion was founded by CEO David Kirtley, CTO Chris Pihl and Principal Scientist George Votroubek. Last year, the company picked up $40 million in funding. Its main investors include billionaire Dustin Moskovitz, a co-founder of Facebook; Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn; the U.S. Department of Energy; Capricorn Investment Group; and Mithril Capital Management.

The latest $500 million round of financing comes from existing investors, including Sam Altman, CEO of the artificial intelligence research firm OpenAI, Moskovitz, Mithril and Capricorn.

“The $500 million already raised fully funds Helion to reach the 2024 target on achieving net electricity from Polaris [the name of the seventh-generation fusion reactor to be developed],” Helion spokesman Isaac Steinmetz told NetZero Insider in an email.

In a recent blog post, Altman wrote: “With a tiny fraction of the money spent on other fusion efforts but the culture of a startup, [Helion] and their team have built a generator that produces electricity. Helion has a clear path to net electricity by 2024 and has a long-term goal of delivering electricity for 1 cent per kilowatt-hour.  If this all works as we hope, we may have a path out of the climate crisis.”

If Helion hits that 2024 target, its investors will provide an additional $1.7 billion.

Getting the Pulse Right

Helion, General Fusion and Tri-Alpha Energy (now TAE Technologies) all said years ago that they would have practical fusion by 2019 or 2020, and none have hit those targets.

In his email, Steinmetz wrote that it normally takes two to three years to upgrade a fusion reactor prototype from one generation to the next. The sixth-generation prototype can produce the commercially relevant fusion conditions.

“With Polaris, it’s a matter of engineering to scale the pulsed, non-ignition method for this proven fusion capability up to the [one nanosecond pulse per second] frequency that creates net electricity generation,” Steinmetz said.

“There will always be unanticipated technical challenges and risks that come up in our pursuit of net electricity by 2024,” Steinmetz said. “The biggest challenge our team faces now is increasing our pulse rep rate from one pulse every 10 minutes, to one pulse per second. However, we’re confident that we have the groundwork in place from all past iterations of Helion’s fusion generator to hit our target.”

A fusion reactor ideally will be smaller, cheaper and safer than the huge fission power reactors that currently dot the world, but so far no one has been able to create nuclear fusion outside of a hydrogen bomb, in which nuclear fission sparks the explosion that leads to fusion. Nuclear fusion occurs naturally in our sun and the stars.

Fusion slams together the cores of two atoms to create the core of one new atom. In today’s fusion efforts, the cores of two hydrogen atoms are crunched to create a new helium atom, with the resulting energy being eyed to create electricity. The hydrogen atoms are actually deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen that includes a neutron.

Fusion is supposed to be dramatically cheaper than fission reactors because of the relatively small amount of deuterium needed as opposed to the processed uranium fuel used for fission. Water is cheaper compared with uranium, and the waste disposal problem is tiny compared with trying to find places to put used nuclear waste and spent fuel rods.

Fusion has existed on the drawing board since the 1920s, but it has been missing the right temperatures, the right atomic cores, the right slamming speeds, the right conditions of the plasmas to envelope the colliding atom cores, the right oscillating magnetic fields enclosing the reaction, the right balance of these forces, and other necessary factors.

Posted on

CEC Allocates $1.4B to ZEV Programs

The California Energy Commission approved spending plans Monday that include $1.4 billion for electric- and hydrogen-powered vehicles over the next three years and $750 million to fund innovations in clean-energy projects through 2025.

The CEC’s 2021-2023 Investment Plan Update to its Clean Transportation Program increases zero-emission vehicle funding six-fold compared with last year’s update. Most of the increase came from this year’s state budget, which put $3.9 billion toward ZEVs to help achieve the state’s goal of decarbonizing its transportation sector during the next two decades. (See Calif. Earmarks $3.9B for ZEVs Through 2024.)

“This plan charts the path for [Gov. Gavin Newsom’s] historic budget investments in zero-emission transportation infrastructure and manufacturing,” Commissioner Patricia Monahan said in a statement. “These dollars close the 2025 infrastructure funding gap so that access to charging and hydrogen fueling isn’t a barrier for those exploring cleaner transportation options including individuals, businesses and public agencies.”

Newsom in September 2020 ordered that all new passenger vehicles sold in the state must be ZEVs by 2035. A 2018 order by former Gov. Jerry Brown set a target of putting 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030. But the state needs a vast expansion of charging and fueling infrastructure to reach those goals. (See Can California Meet Its EV Mandates?)

Newsom took advantage of a large budget surplus this year to turbocharge the effort.

About 80% of the funding allocated by the CEC will go to EV charging and hydrogen refueling infrastructure, including $690 million for medium- and heavy-duty infrastructure and $314 million for light-duty.

The California Air Resources Board is scheduled to consider an additional $1.5 billion in funding Friday, an amount also allocated by the fiscal year 2021-22 state budget. If approved by CARB, the money would fund consumer vehicle rebates and  heavy-duty equipment investments.

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that President Biden signed Monday devotes $7.5 billion to EVs; California expects to receive $384 million over five years to expand charging networks. The state can also apply for some of the $2.5 billion in grant funding dedicated to EV charging in the bill, the White House said.

EPIC Funding

In a separate decision, the CEC approved its Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) spending plan for the next four years.

The commission allocated $150 million per year from 2021 to 2025, totaling $750 million, to fund cutting-edge research and entrepreneurial projects related to clean energy and climate change.

EPIC funding will focus on floating offshore wind turbines, grid reliability during the state’s transition to 100% clean resources by 2045, and short- and long-term energy storage. Using EVs as distributed energy resources and enhancing building decarbonization through electric space and water heating also are priorities.

“This is phenomenal,” CEC Chairman David Hochschild said following the staff presentation. “Just looking at this list, I just feel each and every item address all the key challenges. It feels comprehensive. It feels on point and timely. I’m just incredibly proud of the team.”

Posted on

Negotiations Stall in GlobalFoundries’ Bid for Vt. Utility Status

Parties to semiconductor manufacturer GlobalFoundries’ case seeking utility status in Vermont have been unable to reach an understanding on what the company’s emissions-related responsibilities should be.

Regulators granted an extension in the case in October to give the Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS), Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and GlobalFoundries more time to reach an agreement on a greenhouse gas reduction plan. But the company said in filing on Friday that while the parties have “engaged in productive discussions,” they have not reached an agreement and discussions will continue.

GlobalFoundries filed a petition in March asking the Vermont Public Utility Commission to grant it “self-managed utility” (SMU) status (21-1107-PET) and allow it to purchase electricity in the ISO-NE market instead of from Green Mountain Power.

At issue in the case is whether as an SMU, GlobalFoundries would be subject to Vermont’s renewable energy standard, a cornerstone of the state’s plan to reduce emissions under the 2020 Global Warming Solutions Act. GlobalFoundries has a facility in Essex and is responsible for 8% of the state’s electricity load. In its petition, the company said it should be exempt from RES compliance because it does not intend to distribute electricity.

Environmental advocates are adamant that the company’s sizeable load requires that it be held accountable to Vermont’s clean energy and pollution reduction requirements. The GWSA stood up the state’s first climate council, which is currently compiling a climate action plan for adoption Dec. 1. As part of the plan, the council is considering increasing the state’s RES from 75% by 2032 to 100% in a year to be determined.

The Vermont Public Interest Research Group filed a petition on Nov. 8 that 760 residents signed asking the state to reject GlobalFoundries’ request to be exempt from the law.

“If Vermont accedes to GlobalFoundries wishes, it would be putting energy policy authority for 8% of Vermont’s electricity usage — more than the amount used by the city of Burlington — in the hands of a multibillion-dollar, multinational corporation,” Ben Edgerly Walsh, VPIRG climate and energy program director, said in a letter accompanying the petition.

GlobalFoundries, DPS and ANR agreed to a tentative GHG reduction plan in September, with the potential to reach a definitive memorandum of understanding by the end of October. That plan includes efficiency and GHG reduction obligations for GlobalFoundries that would start in January and a 26% reduction target for 2025 in line with the GWSA. The plan does not define any way to comply with the state’s RES.

In granting an extension in the case, regulators asked parties to submit an MOU by Monday, but that did not happen. Should the parties agree on a final GHG framework, GlobalFoundries said, “they may ask the commission’s leave to submit a proposal at a later date.”

Motion to Dismiss

GlobalFoundries’ request for SMU status is unprecedented and has no basis in state law, and regulators have requested comments on whether the PUC has jurisdiction to grant it.

Vermont-based solar tracker manufacturer AllEarth Renewables filed a motion on Nov. 8 asking the PUC to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. GlobalFoundries meanwhile determined that the PUC does have jurisdiction after looking “long and carefully” at the question, according to a Nov. 8 company brief.

The SMU concept is appropriate for public and legislative debate, AllEarth said, but it is “well beyond” commission authority.

“Vermont electric utility franchising and regulation has long been built upon a structure of vertically integrated electric utilities subject to comprehensive rate regulation … and the legislature has not enacted laws that confer the ‘retail electricity choice’ that comprises a large part of what GlobalFoundries seeks,” AllEarth said.

But GlobalFoundries said that a finding that the PUC does not have jurisdiction would prevent it from protecting Vermonters from the negative consequences of such a large user exiting the state’s retail electricity market.

The company claimed that it would be allowed to pursue an alternative to regulated service “without any oversight to ensure that the proposed plan, as a whole, will promote the general good of the state and be consistent with the state’s energy policy goals.”

That scenario, the company said, “would be a unique omission in the fabric of the commission’s jurisdiction.”

Posted on

Senate Confirms FERC Nominee Willie Phillips

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted unanimously to confirm D.C. Public Service Commission Chair Willie Phillips’ nomination to FERC, securing the Democrats a majority on the commission for the first time in more than four years.

Phillips has served on the D.C. PSC since 2014 and was appointed chair in 2018 by Mayor Muriel Bowser. President Biden selected Phillips to fill the open FERC seat previously held by Republican Neil Chatterjee, who left the agency at the end of August after his term expired in June. (See Biden to Nominate Phillips to FERC.)

FERC Chair Richard Glick offered his “sincere congratulations” to Phillips and expressed appreciation that his appointment fills the last open seat on a commission that has struggled to plug vacancies in recent years.

“As I’ve said, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission functions best when it has a full complement of Commissioners,” Glick said in statement. “I very much look forward to welcoming Mr. Phillips to the commission and working with him soon.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, noted that Phillips’ appointment has earned broad support across the political spectrum in Washington.

“I congratulate Willie Phillips on his confirmation to serve on the FERC,” Manchin said. “He understands the need to balance affordability and reliability and will bring that outlook to the commission. And his unanimous confirmation, at a time when the Senate is uniquely divided, is evidence that he is supremely qualified and the right person to fully seat FERC.”

The newest commissioner has also found favor from the power sector. 

“Commissioner Phillips brings valuable experience to FERC and is exceptionally qualified to serve in this role. I commend him for his continued dedication to public service and look forward to working with him,” Edison Electric Institute President Tom Kuhn said in a statement.

“I have known and worked with Commissioner Phillips for several years. He is an exceptional leader who will bring a wealth of experience to the commission, which today may be busier than it ever has been before,” said EEI Executive Vice President Phil Moeller, a former FERC commissioner.

And while Phillips’ nomination had met with a cool reception from environmental groups, who have questioned his ties to the utilities he will be regulating, a key renewable energy organization offered praise for him.

“Mr. Phillips is highly qualified, with a deep legal understanding of the issues at stake and a demonstrated record of championing the benefits of renewable energy in our nation’s communities,” American Council on Renewable Energy CEO Gregory Wetstone said. “This is a critical moment for our energy transition, and we’re pleased to see that FERC will finally be operating at full capacity to address the transmission and power market reforms necessary to unlock America’s growing renewable energy economy.”

Phillips’ term will end on June 30, 2026.

Posted on

Bankruptcy Court OKs Legal Fees of $65 Million in FES Case

A federal bankruptcy judge in Ohio on Tuesday approved of legal fees of more than $65 million and expenses totaling $2.7 million in the FirstEnergy Solutions bankruptcy case. The decision officially closes the case.

FES, a wholly owned generation subsidiary of FirstEnergy, emerged from bankruptcy as Energy Harbor in February 2020 after 23 months of litigation. It was represented by the international law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, headquartered in D.C.

Akin Gump’s fees included about $2.8 million for lobbying work four members of the firm’s Public Law and Policy Group did to persuade Ohio lawmakers to approve H.B. 6 in June 2019. The legislation created a $1.1 billion public bailout of two FES nuclear reactors in northern Ohio. The firm’s lobbyists also worked closely with FES and FirstEnergy to defeat a referendum petition drive following the bill’s passage.

The court delayed approval of Akin Gump’s final fees and expenses invoice after learning of the existence of the lobbyists on the ground in Ohio and of the decision by FES to contribute $500,000 to Generation Now, a dark money group at the heart of the lobbying effort.

The court also took notice of the indictment of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder (R) and four associates on federal racketeering charges in July 2020, and the dismissal of FirstEnergy’s former chief executive and four others in October 2020 over the company’s contribution of $61 million in dark money to bankroll Householder’s multiyear campaign engineering passage of H.B. 6.

Judge Alan Koschik had delayed his decision for more than a year in the hope that federal prosecutors would let the court know, either in a docket filing or an appearance in court, whether his decision to authorize the final payments, officially closing the bankruptcy proceeding, would conflict with their investigation. He said Tuesday that the Justice Department, nor state authorities, never responded.

Two of the four Householder associates charged with racketeering have pleaded guilty but have not been sentenced. One killed himself in March, while a fourth along with Householder have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial. FirstEnergy has paid a $230 million fine in a deferred prosecution agreement.

Koschik last year ordered the four Akin Gump lobbyists to file affidavits explaining their work, but the firm repeatedly asked for delays until a hearing last month to avoid having to file the affidavits in the public docket and arrange for a court appearance of the four because of the ongoing federal investigation.

“The question before the court is what to do about the request for final approval of Akin Gump’s fees generally, and in particular, its fees for the Government Affairs [division] … [for] the approximate amount of $2.8 million, in light of the federal criminal investigation and indictments concerning alleged corruption and racketeering involving Ohio politicians and political operatives in connection with the passage of Ohio House Bill 6,” Koschik said Tuesday before announcing his ruling.

“This court observes that despite holding at least four substantive hearing on the application, and two more where the court granted motions to adjourn, very few substantive objections have been filed or raised in court. The court has done all it can to provide breathing space for persons to oppose or question some portion of the Akin Gump fees in light of the criminal investigations.”